4 ms·

> "give up freedom for some stupid terrorist attacks?" What level of freedom is lost here? We're NOT talking about mass surveillance generally but the targeted

> "give up freedom for some stupid terrorist attacks?" What level of freedom is lost here? We're NOT talking about mass surveillance generally but the targeted access described by the OP. It's the difference between the police parking a van outside a suspected gang hideout (hopefully after getting a warrant), and parking a van outside every home in America. Most Americans are OK with the former and NOT OK with the latter. And, IMHO, that's a valid trade-off to make in a democratic society. You might object to a particular surveillance target (Merkel), which is understandable. But would you object to spying on Putin? I suspect even Germany (especially Germany) would be okay with the NSA conducting targeted surveillance of senior members of the Russian military with ties to Eastern Ukraine. In an ideal world, there would be no surveillance or any surrender of liberty in any scenario. But the world is not ideal and compromises are made. Germany is not immune to this. Case in point: Hate speech is illegal in Germany, which is understandable given German history, but a violation of free speech rights in the U.S. The challenge is not to reject all infringements of freedom wholesale but to identify where lines can be drawn between what can be tolerated and what must not.

logn 12y ago
They excluded a few countries and two usernames. Medium-level infection reached 18 countries. I think it's foolish to defend alleged NSA operations when the NSA won't even acknowledge such operations. If the government wants to have a debate about the rules of digital warfare (or a particular war), then let's. If they don't, then why should we defend their secret tactics? We have no idea what the motives and objectives are of these operations. And we have little knowledge about how they've affected people, innocent or otherwise. Your casual analogy to parking vans outside homes seems reasonable. Until you consider what that actually means in our real life. For instance, vans outside homes has been a large part of the war on drugs which has imprisoned a staggering number of black youth. What do you think is the analogous fallout of this malware? Drone strikes? Defend those.
- anologwintermut 12y ago
  The notation that a debate on the rules of digital warfare will do anything is questionable. Arms control limitations (SALT,START), the hague convention, etc, work because there are means of verifying countries adhere to what they agree on (and ostensibly punishing those who don't). Given the difficulty of attributing cyber attacks (e.g. Sony), much less cyber espionage, there's little reason to think this is possible in this case. And that's just for direct action. If we're talking about tactics and capabilities, it's impossible. How are you going to make sure there aren't 30 people somewhere writing malware for a government? You can't, at least absent far more invasive spying or some kind of DRM that makes writing malware illegal.
  - logn 12y ago
    My point was mostly that I will not defend secret war/aggression/cybercrime especially in light of recent history. I'm surprised so many people here defend this malware claiming that it's (1) justified and (2) targeted. Since, we have no idea what it's for and it's heavily infected 18 countries. I'd guess they also support targeted torture and rectal hydration too. Just as long as it's not citizens. Except for just the really bad citizens.
    - trynumber9 12y ago
      No one in this thread has said they support torture. This malware has nothing g to do with torture. What was the point of that fake argument? Supporting targeted malware is not supporting torture.
      - aburan28 12y ago
        When the state conducting torture and assassinations without due process of its own citizens is the one making the calls about who to round up or kill via metadata they are vis a vis.
      - logn 12y ago
        There was some sarcasm in my comment above and I didn't fully detail what I meant. The point was that something doesn't become ok just because it's targeted at non-citizens or the targets are more limited than simply everyone. (Unless other context can justify it... but we're being kept in the dark). It's still dragnet surveillance. Similarly torture is wrong and no amount of "targeting" can change that. So I think there's a disconnect in people who oppose mass surveillance but approve of this. I presume many people ok with this malware are opposed to torture; it wasn't to be taken literally.
moe 12y ago
and parking a van outside every home in America Have you really still not realized that this is exactly what is happening? How many more Snowden's do you need?
- andrewfong 12y ago
  Re-read the comment chain. Was not denying the existence of mass surveillance. But the comment at the top of this chain states that targeted malware (the subject of the OP) is distinct from mass surveillance. Which seems to be mostly true.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - cocoablazing 12y ago
    The van is now in your pocket, living room, and office.
    - LLWM 12y ago
      Joke's on you, my living room IS my office!
tripzilch 12y ago
> Case in point: Hate speech is illegal in Germany, which is understandable given German history, but a violation of free speech rights in the U.S. Germany gave up that part of their free speech because of the horrors they inflicted upon the world, they wanted to prevent happening ever again no matter what. I've yet to see the USA make any kind of adjustment for the atrocities, torture, murders, war crimes they pulled. Point is, the USA doesn't have any more slack left over. So yeah targeted surveillance that might otherwise considered fine and just if it were done by the "good guys" or even just a responsible party, is going to be met with a large amount of suspicion. And for good reason. These are powerful capabilities the USA doesn't even seem to be able to keep in check internally, who knows what it'll be used for (at the very least it'll show up in economic/corporate espionage, that's a certainty).
- etrevino 12y ago
  > Germany gave up that part of their free speech because of the horrors they inflicted upon the world, they wanted to prevent happening ever again no matter what. I've yet to see the USA make any kind of adjustment for the atrocities, torture, murders, war crimes they pulled. This comparison really isn't apt or constructive. Not only has none of the top US leadership been indicted for war crimes in the ICC or by the UN, but the German state and quite a number of the German people knowingly participated in the extinction of at least 12 million people. Whether you think that the Iraq War was right or legal or not doesn't matter unless there is an indictment and conviction. In addition, the sum total of the crimes-- whatever they may be-- do not add up to total societal or national culpability.
  - saiya-jin 12y ago
    There is this Bush guy, easily the most hated US president to date by rest of the world (ie those +-95% of human race outside US). Let's not get too much into his lackey Rumsfeld... If in some ridiculous alternate reality Iraq would defeat US & UK and would actually went on and conquer them as nations, theye guys (joined by UK PM for examlpe) could easily end up in similar trial and be hanged. As you know, rules and history are written by vinners ;)

logn 12y ago

They excluded a few countries and two usernames. Medium-level infection reached 18 countries. I think it's foolish to defend alleged NSA operations when the NSA won't even acknowledge such operations. If the government wants to have a debate about the rules of digital warfare (or a particular war), then let's. If they don't, then why should we defend their secret tactics? We have no idea what the motives and objectives are of these operations. And we have little knowledge about how they've affected people, innocent or otherwise. Your casual analogy to parking vans outside homes seems reasonable. Until you consider what that actually means in our real life. For instance, vans outside homes has been a large part of the war on drugs which has imprisoned a staggering number of black youth. What do you think is the analogous fallout of this malware? Drone strikes? Defend those.

anologwintermut 12y ago
The notation that a debate on the rules of digital warfare will do anything is questionable. Arms control limitations (SALT,START), the hague convention, etc, work because there are means of verifying countries adhere to what they agree on (and ostensibly punishing those who don't). Given the difficulty of attributing cyber attacks (e.g. Sony), much less cyber espionage, there's little reason to think this is possible in this case. And that's just for direct action. If we're talking about tactics and capabilities, it's impossible. How are you going to make sure there aren't 30 people somewhere writing malware for a government? You can't, at least absent far more invasive spying or some kind of DRM that makes writing malware illegal.
- logn 12y ago
  My point was mostly that I will not defend secret war/aggression/cybercrime especially in light of recent history. I'm surprised so many people here defend this malware claiming that it's (1) justified and (2) targeted. Since, we have no idea what it's for and it's heavily infected 18 countries. I'd guess they also support targeted torture and rectal hydration too. Just as long as it's not citizens. Except for just the really bad citizens.
  - trynumber9 12y ago
    No one in this thread has said they support torture. This malware has nothing g to do with torture. What was the point of that fake argument? Supporting targeted malware is not supporting torture.
    - aburan28 12y ago
      When the state conducting torture and assassinations without due process of its own citizens is the one making the calls about who to round up or kill via metadata they are vis a vis.
    - logn 12y ago
      There was some sarcasm in my comment above and I didn't fully detail what I meant. The point was that something doesn't become ok just because it's targeted at non-citizens or the targets are more limited than simply everyone. (Unless other context can justify it... but we're being kept in the dark). It's still dragnet surveillance. Similarly torture is wrong and no amount of "targeting" can change that. So I think there's a disconnect in people who oppose mass surveillance but approve of this. I presume many people ok with this malware are opposed to torture; it wasn't to be taken literally.

moe 12y ago

and parking a van outside every home in America Have you really still not realized that this is exactly what is happening? How many more Snowden's do you need?

andrewfong 12y ago
Re-read the comment chain. Was not denying the existence of mass surveillance. But the comment at the top of this chain states that targeted malware (the subject of the OP) is distinct from mass surveillance. Which seems to be mostly true.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- cocoablazing 12y ago
  The van is now in your pocket, living room, and office.
  - LLWM 12y ago
    Joke's on you, my living room IS my office!

tripzilch 12y ago

> Case in point: Hate speech is illegal in Germany, which is understandable given German history, but a violation of free speech rights in the U.S. Germany gave up that part of their free speech because of the horrors they inflicted upon the world, they wanted to prevent happening ever again no matter what. I've yet to see the USA make any kind of adjustment for the atrocities, torture, murders, war crimes they pulled. Point is, the USA doesn't have any more slack left over. So yeah targeted surveillance that might otherwise considered fine and just if it were done by the "good guys" or even just a responsible party, is going to be met with a large amount of suspicion. And for good reason. These are powerful capabilities the USA doesn't even seem to be able to keep in check internally, who knows what it'll be used for (at the very least it'll show up in economic/corporate espionage, that's a certainty).

etrevino 12y ago
> Germany gave up that part of their free speech because of the horrors they inflicted upon the world, they wanted to prevent happening ever again no matter what. I've yet to see the USA make any kind of adjustment for the atrocities, torture, murders, war crimes they pulled. This comparison really isn't apt or constructive. Not only has none of the top US leadership been indicted for war crimes in the ICC or by the UN, but the German state and quite a number of the German people knowingly participated in the extinction of at least 12 million people. Whether you think that the Iraq War was right or legal or not doesn't matter unless there is an indictment and conviction. In addition, the sum total of the crimes-- whatever they may be-- do not add up to total societal or national culpability.
- saiya-jin 12y ago
  There is this Bush guy, easily the most hated US president to date by rest of the world (ie those +-95% of human race outside US). Let's not get too much into his lackey Rumsfeld... If in some ridiculous alternate reality Iraq would defeat US & UK and would actually went on and conquer them as nations, theye guys (joined by UK PM for examlpe) could easily end up in similar trial and be hanged. As you know, rules and history are written by vinners ;)